NationStates Jolt Archive

uhm.... no, if you come into my house; if you don't leave when told to, I get to shoot you... esp. if you come armed and already shot my brother "on accident"
fine but remember my gun is already out. and the arabs that are shooting at me have made me jumpy...good luck on shooting me first. I am not killing you because I hate you, I can't judge people only God can...just making sure you get a meeting.

I hardly feel sorry for them though

Dont get me wrong I support our troops but if they did not know that joining the military could lead to fighting ...

They could have gone through collage without the millitary ... I did and am

Let me know where the money grows on trees I would like some. The fact is not everyone can afford to go to college. Congrats that you were able to. But just because you can does not mean everyone has access to the resources that you did.

uhm.... no, if you come into my house; if you don't leave when told to, I get to shoot you... esp. if you come armed and already shot my brother "on accident"

That would be paramount to murder actually. Knowingly killing someone that isn't in self defense is usually labeled as 1st degree murder. Premediated if you planned it and executed it.

I don't think you'll be telling a soldier to get out of your house if the soldier in question is standing there with a rifle and a bullet in the chamber.

Are you saying soldiers are shooting people for the fun of it? If the military says its an accident, theres a big chance it was an accident. I doubt they would simply waste a bomb to kill people because they think it's fun.

And for f*ck's sakes, this is a war, of course they are going to break down doors to find suspected terrorists. They can't take the chances of letting any of them hide.

This is war, we're suppose to be killing the enemy, not inviting them to tea parties

yes yes, this is war. why, cause some stupid little shit said so. I can go declare war on you, that way when I kill you it'll be all ohkay. bullshit.

and, back to: do you distinguish between an accident and a consquence you relize beforehand, but are willing to accept.

my cousin told me he was ordered to fire a machine gun into a large crowd to get maybe 6-10 people.... this isn't an accident, this is a conquence that you relize beforehand but decided it's ohkay. the people caught in the crossfire were killed on purpose, not on accident. same with bombings, did they want to kill all those random people, no... but they knew it was going to happen and they did it anyway.

alright, go ahead and kick in random doors, but don't act fucking surprised or rightous when you get shot.

fine but remember my gun is already out. and the arabs that are shooting at me have made me jumpy...good luck on shooting me first. I am not killing you because I hate you, I can't judge people only God can...just making sure you get a meeting.

"only god can" that's the shittiest shit eater cop out there is.

yes yes, this is war. why, cause some stupid little shit said so. I can go declare war on you, that way when I kill you it'll be all ohkay. bullshit.

and, back to: do you distinguish between an accident and a consquence you relize beforehand, but are willing to accept.

my cousin told me he was ordered to fire a machine gun into a large crowd to get maybe 6-10 people.... this isn't an accident, this is a conquence that you relize beforehand but decided it's ohkay. the people caught in the crossfire were killed on purpose, not on accident. same with bombings, did they want to kill all those random people, no... but they knew it was going to happen and they did it anyway.

alright, go ahead and kick in random doors, but don't act fucking surprised or rightous when you get shot.

Collatoral<sp?> Damage...has always been a part of war. Nations declare war...not individuals. So if you are a nation unto yourself...declare war.

"only god can" that's the shittiest shit eater cop out there is.
yeah now you know how I feel when religious extremist cite god as the reason they have to kill.

That would be paramount to murder actually. Knowingly killing someone that isn't in self defense is usually labeled as 1st degree murder. Premediated if you planned it and executed it.

I don't think you'll be telling a soldier to get out of your house if the soldier in question is standing there with a rifle and a bullet in the chamber.

an armed person in your house who refuses to leave is an explict threat to your life and as such, it's self-defense to kill them.

Collatoral<sp?> Damage...has always been a part of war. Nations declare war...not individuals. So if you are a nation unto yourself...declare war.

nations are cultrual entities. states declare war, not nations.

it's besides the point. war is only "ligit" cause the state says so is as stupid an argument as my freedoms are only "ligit" as long as the state says so. Collateral damage is not a justification. "this is the way things have always been" is not a justification.

That would be paramount to murder actually. Knowingly killing someone that isn't in self defense is usually labeled as 1st degree murder. Premediated if you planned it and executed it.

I don't think you'll be telling a soldier to get out of your house if the soldier in question is standing there with a rifle and a bullet in the chamber.

So... let us imagine a kind of role-reversal...

China invades the US. A good old landwar... we totally did not see half a billion guys with machine guns wandering across the Canadian border.

Now, they are here. They've 're-organised' our police force and military to be sympathetic to their cause, and they've finally taken their guy out of the control seat, and handed over to a puppet government.

Every day, armed Chinese troops patrol your street. You constantly hear about the various types of violences carried out by the Chinese occupation... small children being killed, innocent victims shot because they didn't hear someone yelling at a checkpoint, people being tortured and abused if they get detained for anything.

Are you trying to tell me, in that situation, you'd just sit by and let the Chinese overlords do as they wish with your nation? What about if one of the soldiers came into your house and started yelling stuff (in Chinese) at your family, and waving his gun?

an armed person in your house who refuses to leave is an explict threat to your life and as such, it's self-defense to kill them.

Do you know, the minute you make a move, you'll be dead?

So... let us imagine a kind of role-reversal...

China invades the US. A good old landwar... we totally did not see half a billion guys with machine guns wandering across the Canadian border.

Now, they are here. They've 're-organised' our police force and military to be sympathetic to their cause, and they've finally taken their guy out of the control seat, and handed over to a puppet government.

Every day, armed Chinese troops patrol your street. You constantly hear about the various types of violences carried out by the Chinese occupation... small children being killed, innocent victims shot because they didn't hear someone yelling at a checkpoint, people being tortured and abused if they get detained for anything.

Are you trying to tell me, in that situation, you'd just sit by and let the Chinese overlords do as they wish with your nation? What about if one of the soldiers came into your house and started yelling stuff (in Chinese) at your family, and waving his gun?

I'd go after the Chinese soldiers only and do my best to limit civilian casualties. By limiting civilian casualties, the public will see that my beef is with the soldiers. I'll also go after government targets and hopefully cut down on civilian casualties there as well.

I am not naive to know civilians that civilians will die. I know they will but I'll do my best to limit the number of civilians that will be killed or wounded. That is being an insurgent.

So... let us imagine a kind of role-reversal...

China invades the US. A good old landwar... we totally did not see half a billion guys with machine guns wandering across the Canadian border.

Now, they are here. They've 're-organised' our police force and military to be sympathetic to their cause, and they've finally taken their guy out of the control seat, and handed over to a puppet government.

Every day, armed Chinese troops patrol your street. You constantly hear about the various types of violences carried out by the Chinese occupation... small children being killed, innocent victims shot because they didn't hear someone yelling at a checkpoint, people being tortured and abused if they get detained for anything.

Are you trying to tell me, in that situation, you'd just sit by and let the Chinese overlords do as they wish with your nation? What about if one of the soldiers came into your house and started yelling stuff (in Chinese) at your family, and waving his gun?

That's totally different. China is a communist dictatorship who kill anyone who merely disagree's with the government. USA is a democracy whether you think so or not.

Another thing, China wouldn't be liberating America if they invaded. America is not a brutal dictatorship. It's a system where people can freely vote out their leader and elect a new one. Saddam was leader for life. People had no choice. The US was liberating them, and Iraqi's seem to exercise their freedom more than most western democracies(election wise)

Nice try though

PS: My 100th post, alright!

I'd go after the Chinese soldiers only and do my best to limit civilian casualties. By limiting civilian casualties, the public will see that my beef is with the soldiers. I'll also go after government targets and hopefully cut down on civilian casualties there as well.

I am not naive to know civilians that civilians will die. I know they will but I'll do my best to limit the number of civilians that will be killed or wounded. That is being an insurgent.

So, you admit you would carry out violent attacks on the armed forces of the nation you saw as an aggressor? A moment ago, you were saying "I don't think you'll be telling a soldier to get out of your house if the soldier in question is standing there with a rifle and a bullet in the chamber"... but now you are a freedom fighter?

Indeed, not just a resistor, but, by your own admission, a murderer: "Knowingly killing someone that isn't in self defense is usually labeled as 1st degree murder".

What about your next door neighbour, who is actually HELPING the Chinese invaders? He's giving them information about the 'resistance' in your street.

What about the Unitarians, who have decided en masse to collaborate with, feed, accomodate, etc... the Chinese stormtroopers?

I really think you should leave the pro-war arguments to the likes of me and Corneliu. Your posts are devoid of logic, reason and depend on emotional rants about abstract notions of "freedom".
Every thread needs a little comic relief, and here we have a classic example. You might have been able to get away with the above statement, but as soon as you included the Cornman, I couldn't stop from laughing. :D

Rhetoric = / = FACTS.

I am not naive to know civilians that civilians will die. I know they will but I'll do my best to limit the number of civilians that will be killed or wounded. That is being an insurgent.
No you wouldn't. You would "carpet bomb" the whole country. Your words keep coming back to bite you.

Frankly, I would've carpet bombed the nation and then send in the military forces.
That really doesn't sound like you would limit "the number of civilians that will be killed or wounded".

Quit contradicting yourself. Pick one or the other.

That's totally different. China is a communist dictatorship who kill anyone who merely disagree's with the government. USA is a democracy whether you think so or not.

Another thing, China wouldn't be liberating America if they invaded. America is not a brutal dictatorship. It's a system where people can freely vote out their leader and elect a new one. Saddam was leader for life. People had no choice. The US was liberating them, and Iraqi's seem to exercise their freedom more than most western democracies(election wise)

Nice try though

PS: My 100th post, alright!

First: The USA is not a "Democracy".

Second: You are rebutting a hypotheical situation by spreading untruths. The simple fact that the Chinese system HAS political prisoners makes a liar of your assertion that they "kill anyone who merely disagree's with the government".

Third: Some people do see the USA as a form of dictatorship... and we DO have a pretty crappy recent history... prison abuses, domestic spying, taking prisoners outside of warzones, covert interrogation locations... even a delayed refusal to disallow torture. Not to mention the fact that Chinese prisons allowed some access to UN Inspectors, and the US still refuses.

It would certainly be possible to use the EXCUSE that we were being 'liberated'.

Fourth: You really don't understand the electoral college system if you think you can vote out the leader.

Nice try, though.

However, of course... you actually managed to entirely miss the POINT of my little scenario, which was not to gloat over 'how great we are'... but to imagine what one would do in those kinds of circumstances.

No you wouldn't. You would "carpet bomb" the whole country. Your words keep coming back to bite you.


That really doesn't sound like you would limit "the number of civilians that will be killed or wounded".

Quit contradicting yourself. Pick one or the other.

I believe they usually accompany that kind of evidence of self-contradiction, with a rousing chorus of 'pwned', yes?

My country jsut got handed command of southern afganistan!:)

So, you admit you would carry out violent attacks on the armed forces of the nation you saw as an aggressor? A moment ago, you were saying "I don't think you'll be telling a soldier to get out of your house if the soldier in question is standing there with a rifle and a bullet in the chamber"... but now you are a freedom fighter?

I'd make damn sure they couldn't find me but if they do they do. Of course, I wouldn't do what Saddam Hussein did. Of course, I'd make sure my weapon was under my pillow and ready to go incase of that eventuality. That is, if I have time to even grab it. I might though. Depending on the guards :D

However, that is if I'm a cell leader in a resistence movement. That is where you went with that. So I answered in accordence with what you gave me. Now if you had a different scenerio, my response maybe different.

Indeed, not just a resistor, but, by your own admission, a murderer: "Knowingly killing someone that isn't in self defense is usually labeled as 1st degree murder".

War is murder but authorized murder and an insurgency is the same as fighting a war but on a different plain.

What about your next door neighbour, who is actually HELPING the Chinese invaders? He's giving them information about the 'resistance' in your street.

Can someone say the word ambush? I don't have to take him out to take out the Chinese forces. He's a peon not the head of the totum poll.

What about the Unitarians, who have decided en masse to collaborate with, feed, accomodate, etc... the Chinese stormtroopers?

I'll go after the soldiers. The soldiers are more important than those people.

I don't support any national troops, ever.

same goes for me

No you wouldn't. You would "carpet bomb" the whole country. Your words keep coming back to bite you.

No I wouldn't CanuckHeaven. Kinda hard to find planes when your the insurgent. I wouldn't even use carbombs either.

That really doesn't sound like you would limit "the number of civilians that will be killed or wounded".

Always try to limit civilian casualties.

Quit contradicting yourself. Pick one or the other.

I'm not contradicting at all.

First: The USA is not a "Democracy".

Second: You are rebutting a hypotheical situation by spreading untruths. The simple fact that the Chinese system HAS political prisoners makes a liar of your assertion that they "kill anyone who merely disagree's with the government".

Third: Some people do see the USA as a form of dictatorship... and we DO have a pretty crappy recent history... prison abuses, domestic spying, taking prisoners outside of warzones, covert interrogation locations... even a delayed refusal to disallow torture. Not to mention the fact that Chinese prisons allowed some access to UN Inspectors, and the US still refuses.

It would certainly be possible to use the EXCUSE that we were being 'liberated'.

Fourth: You really don't understand the electoral college system if you think you can vote out the leader.

Nice try, though.

However, of course... you actually managed to entirely miss the POINT of my little scenario, which was not to gloat over 'how great we are'... but to imagine what one would do in those kinds of circumstances.


1) My mistake. It's a federal republic

2) They killed the protestors in the 1989 massacre. Those students wanted democracy, the government did not. Those students disagreed with the government, did they not? And they were killed, were they not?

3) It's NOT a dictatorship. As stated, it's a federal republic. People only see it as a dictatorship because their lives are affected greatly from American culture, not because the government literally controls everyone's life and the economy. And there is no "we", it's a "you have a crappy history" because I am Canadian/German, and not affected by those scandals.

4) I was merely stating that in your elections, a new leader is elected into office replacing the old leader(or the old leader stays in power)

1) My mistake. It's a federal republic

2) They killed the protestors in the 1989 massacre. Those students wanted democracy, the government did not. Those students disagreed with the government, did they not? And they were killed, were they not?

3) It's NOT a dictatorship. As stated, it's a federal republic. People only see it as a dictatorship because their lives are affected greatly from American culture, not because the government literally controls everyone's life and the economy. And there is no "we", it's a "you have a crappy history" because I am Canadian/German, and not affected by those scandals.

4) I was merely stating that in your elections, a new leader is elected into office replacing the old leader(or the old leader stays in power)
And again you miss(ignore) his point.

War is murder but authorized murder and an insurgency is the same as fighting a war but on a different plain.


No. War is a specific state between powers. It has rules for it's declaration, how it can be fought, etc.

An insurgency is not a war. No matter how certain spin-doctors might want the average drone to accept it.


Can someone say the word ambush? I don't have to take him out to take out the Chinese forces. He's a peon not the head of the totum poll.


Peon or not, I think you are unrealistic if you think the situation can be resolved amicably. If you don't do something about your neighbour, a lot of (your) people ae going to die through his actions.

Also - being realistic, with the 'head of the totem pole' half a world away, he's probably not too worried about your plans.


I'll go after the soldiers. The soldiers are more important than those people.

Again... I think you play too many computer war-games, and have too little idea about the real necessities of such situations. If you honestly think you can fight a partisan war, without controlling the supply lines, you are not the student of history you think you are.

No I wouldn't CanuckHeaven. Kinda hard to find planes when your the insurgent. I wouldn't even use carbombs either.

Always try to limit civilian casualties.

I'm not contradicting at all.

I can't really see how you think you can accomodate 'carpet bomb' and 'limit casualties'... (Arguing no access to planes does not undo the fact that that is your already declared opinion on how the situation is best resolved.)

And again you miss(ignore) his point.

his point was "what one would do in these circumstances"

but since the circumstances are no where close to what's happening in Iraq, I'm pretty sure what I posted in retaliation was justified

I don't support any national troops, ever.

same goes for me

I think I said as much on the first page... or was that some other thread?

I believe they usually accompany that kind of evidence of self-contradiction, with a rousing chorus of 'pwned', yes?
Yes indeed, but I am afraid that he can't understand when he has been "pwned", so I don't bother anymore. :D

Do you know, the minute you make a move, you'll be dead?

and you do know, that the only thing you are justifying the soilders actions on is tactical surpremacy. so it's not anylonger a question of "is the occupation justifyed", but "how do we and how long will it take to kill the occupation forces"

14. Do you think now of Coalition forces mostly as occupiers or mostly as liberators?

Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Occupiers 71% 82 80 80 1
Liberators 19% 4 7 10 97
Both 8% 13 11 7 2

8. Should US/British forces leave immediately (next few months) or stay longer?

Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Immediately 57 75 61 65 3
Stay longer 36 21 30 27 96

No. War is a specific state between powers. It has rules for it's declaration, how it can be fought, etc.

And they were followed.

An insurgency is not a war. No matter how certain spin-doctors might want the average drone to accept it.

Tell that to the French.

Peon or not, I think you are unrealistic if you think the situation can be resolved amicably. If you don't do something about your neighbour, a lot of (your) people ae going to die through his actions.

Not really. Not if they are alerted. False information can be a valuable tool. Use the informant to lead the chinese soldiers into an ambush. Its been done before. Once that happens, the peon will be uncredible or dead. Either way it aides the insurgency.

Also - being realistic, with the 'head of the totem pole' half a world away, he's probably not too worried about your plans.

I wasn't talking about the Head of the Chinese Government.

Again... I think you play too many computer war-games, and have too little idea about the real necessities of such situations. If you honestly think you can fight a partisan war, without controlling the supply lines, you are not the student of history you think you are.

I know about war. My father has fought in war and has been shot at. I know how dangerous war is and know it should be a last resort.

That's totally different. China is a communist dictatorship who kill anyone who merely disagree's with the government. USA is a democracy whether you think so or not.

Another thing, China wouldn't be liberating America if they invaded. America is not a brutal dictatorship. It's a system where people can freely vote out their leader and elect a new one. Saddam was leader for life. People had no choice. The US was liberating them, and Iraqi's seem to exercise their freedom more than most western democracies(election wise)

Nice try though

PS: My 100th post, alright!

prove, through a study of US history, that the US is usally supporting democracy when it invades countrys under such pretenses.

US bullys and coerces democracy around the world! (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Afghan_ESal_Iraq_Elections.html)
liberating Iraq, more domestic PR agenda then substatiated fact! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/)

14. Do you think now of Coalition forces mostly as occupiers or mostly as liberators?

Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Occupiers 71% 82 80 80 1
Liberators 19% 4 7 10 97
Both 8% 13 11 7 2

8. Should US/British forces leave immediately (next few months) or stay longer?

Total Baghdad Shi’ite areas Sunni areas Kurdish areas
Immediately 57 75 61 65 3
Stay longer 36 21 30 27 96

And when the terrorists actually stop blowing up Iraqis we will leave. All the government has to do is tell us to leave so no sense yelling at US Forces. We are there at the behest of the government now. If they want us to leave all they have to do is tell us.

Our troops (Indian) are not in Iraq or Afghanistan. I would like for our troops to be there (especially in Afghanistan, where we are engaged in large scale reconstruction efforts) for peacekeeping but only under UN banner and not under NATO/US command.


Do you think Pakistan would get nervous?

1) My mistake. It's a federal republic


It is a common mistake.


2) They killed the protestors in the 1989 massacre. Those students wanted democracy, the government did not. Those students disagreed with the government, did they not? And they were killed, were they not?


No. It is a common belief that the Tiananmen Square situation was 'democratic students versus tanks', but the reality of the situation is a little more complex. There were anti-communist protestors, there were those protesting against government corruption... but there were also 'worker' factions protesting the economic reforms of the government.

The common belief illustrates an evening of tanks running over civilians, but, in actuality, the protests ran from mid April till early June. Martial law was declared halfway through that period, roughly, but no troops were actually 'called in' until the political unrest was almost two months old. When the troops DID get called in, it was infantry and armour, and they actually suffered reasonably heavy casualties (some sources claim 6000 military casualties) in the approach to Tiananmen Square.

At some points in the proceedings, as many as 100,000 people (or more) were in Tiananmen square, and yet 'only' 400-2600 civilian fatalities were 'recorded'.... though the figures are very speculative, and vary wildly. Most estimates say that fewer than 10,000 civilians were injured.

So - SOME of the people wanted democracy, and SOME of them died.

It was a terrible event, no doubt... but hardly what you claimed: "China is a communist dictatorship who kill anyone who merely disagree's with the government".


3) It's NOT a dictatorship. As stated, it's a federal republic. People only see it as a dictatorship because their lives are affected greatly from American culture, not because the government literally controls everyone's life and the economy. And there is no "we", it's a "you have a crappy history" because I am Canadian/German, and not affected by those scandals.


It is 'we', because I am an American Resident (ex-Englishman)... and thus, not entirely divorced from the procedings. Of course... 'we' all share the same world anyway...

But... I actually pointed out a number of reasons WHY other nations might consider us a 'dictatorial' power... indeed, why some of our OWN do.... and why other powers might consider they had good excuse to 'liberate' us.


4) I was merely stating that in your elections, a new leader is elected into office replacing the old leader(or the old leader stays in power)

But, that official is not elected by the people.

Also - you still haven't addressed what I would call 'the point'.

prove, through a study of US history, that the US is usally supporting democracy when it invades countrys under such pretenses.

US bullys and coerces democracy around the world! (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Afghan_ESal_Iraq_Elections.html)
liberating Iraq, more domestic PR agenda then substatiated fact! (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/)

Your 2nd link is a blog.

Tell that to the French.


When?

his point was "what one would do in these circumstances"

but since the circumstances are no where close to what's happening in Iraq, I'm pretty sure what I posted in retaliation was justified

Perhaps you don't see the situation as close... others might.

However, that is irrelevent.

I didn't ask what you would do in Iraq. (Indeed, I wasn;t originally aiming it at you, at all). I asked what you would do in a PARALLEL situation.

If you prefer, you could imagine it is a surprise reconsitution of the Soviet Union, occupying the provinces of Canada... whatever floats your boat.

I see you are having trouble with numbers. Its ok. We all do.
Its not even a simple majority either.

Well, you certainly do. You obviously have no idea what the phrase 'simple majority' means.
So here it is:
As an example, let's consider three propositions: A, B, and C, that are proposed in a club of 100 members. In order for a proposition to be successful, a simple majority must agree to it. The results of the election are:

20 votes for proposition A
40 votes for proposition B
15 votes for proposition C
25 didn't cast a vote
Since there are more votes for B than there are votes for both A and C combined, B has the simple majority, and so wins.
Is that simple enough for you?

Just because 'only' 45% want indiscriminate attacks, doesn't necessarily foloow that 55% are against. There may have been other options, you know.

When?

The French Resistence of the 1940s.

Your 2nd link is a blog.
How about actually adressing the point instead of your usual avoiding the point.

No. It is a common belief that the Tiananmen Square situation was 'democratic students versus tanks', but the reality of the situation is a little more complex. There were anti-communist protestors, there were those protesting against government corruption... but there were also 'worker' factions protesting the economic reforms of the government.

The common belief illustrates an evening of tanks running over civilians, but, in actuality, the protests ran from mid April till early June. Martial law was declared halfway through that period, roughly, but no troops were actually 'called in' until the political unrest was almost two months old. When the troops DID get called in, it was infantry and armour, and they actually suffered reasonably heavy casualties (some sources claim 6000 military casualties) in the approach to Tiananmen Square.

At some points in the proceedings, as many as 100,000 people (or more) were in Tiananmen square, and yet 'only' 400-2600 civilian fatalities were 'recorded'.... though the figures are very speculative, and vary wildly. Most estimates say that fewer than 10,000 civilians were injured.

So - SOME of the people wanted democracy, and SOME of them died.

It was a terrible event, no doubt... but hardly what you claimed: "China is a communist dictatorship who kill anyone who merely disagree's with the government".
Mind supplying us with some links to back your claims up?
What you're saying is way different to everything I've ever read about.
Just curious.

How about actually adressing the point instead of your usual avoiding the point.

There is no point. I read the blog and its a nice opinion. Just like his first website. Opinion

opinion =/= fact

And they were followed.


We are only 'nominally' at war. The only reason Bush said "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" rather than "the War is over", is because the US would have had to repatriate Iraqi prisoners, and call off the 'hunt' for the 'most wanted' if an ACTUAL cessation were declared.

However, we are actually walking a tight-rope here. If we are NOT at war, we ahve these responsibilities we should be following up... like releasing prisoners. But, if we ARE at war, since the Iraqi army was defeated, we are in something of a Geneva Convention quagmire, with all this shooting at civilians... armed or not.

The US has deliberately muddied that issue, so we can fire on civvies AND hold prisoners.


Tell that to the French.


Do they care?


Not really. Not if they are alerted. False information can be a valuable tool. Use the informant to lead the chinese soldiers into an ambush. Its been done before. Once that happens, the peon will be uncredible or dead. Either way it aides the insurgency.


Unless your neighbour is smarter than you. Or not the ONLY neighbour. Or the soldiers aren't dumb enough to fall into your trap. Or the soldiers sweep your block before you get organised.

You don't think like a soldier. You'd be dead.


I wasn't talking about the Head of the Chinese Government.


Really? Who were you talking about, then?


I know about war. My father has fought in war and has been shot at. I know how dangerous war is and know it should be a last resort.

Your father knows (knew) about war. You don't seem to 'get it'. And, what is with this prevarication? "it should be a last resort"... in the example, we are SURELY talking about a last-resort situation? And... in the real-world, many in Iraq feel that THEY have a last-resort situation.

And when the terrorists actually stop blowing up Iraqis we will leave. All the government has to do is tell us to leave so no sense yelling at US Forces. We are there at the behest of the government now. If they want us to leave all they have to do is tell us.

The 'terrorists' that are blowing up Iraqi's, were not in Iraq until the occupation by US soldiers.

When the US leaves, they will have much less to 'war' against. We really are perpetuating the violence.

The 'terrorists' that are blowing up Iraqi's, were not in Iraq until the occupation by US soldiers.

When the US leaves, they will have much less to 'war' against. We really are perpetuating the violence.
So you think that there is no big movement towards a totalitarian theocracy behind the terrorist attacks. It's only revenge for infidels invading sacred muslim territory? Once the U.S. leaves, there will just be a bunch of happy campers left to pick up where they left off under the last despot.

Mind supplying us with some links to back your claims up?
What you're saying is way different to everything I've ever read about.
Just curious.

Well, just one source... off the top of my head:

George Washington University resources:

"National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 16"

"Tiananmen Square, 1989 The Declassified History A National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book"

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/index.html

1) My mistake. It's a federal republic

2) They killed the protestors in the 1989 massacre. Those students wanted democracy, the government did not. Those students disagreed with the government, did they not? And they were killed, were they not?

and the US killed the protesters at Kent State.


3) It's NOT a dictatorship. As stated, it's a federal republic. People only see it as a dictatorship because their lives are affected greatly from American culture, not because the government literally controls everyone's life and the economy. And there is no "we", it's a "you have a crappy history" because I am Canadian/German, and not affected by those scandals.

if communism is "the dictatorship of the proletarian", then the US is at best "the dictatorship of the majority of voters"


4) I was merely stating that in your elections, a new leader is elected into office replacing the old leader(or the old leader stays in power)

are you familular with the (State-)Soviet System? just like in the US were the Electorial College sits tween the people and the president, the Soviet sits between the people and the Premier. Both examples are democracy/republicism+buercarcy. it's just that the Soviet is much more buercracy'ed then the Electorial College.

So you think that there is no big movement towards a totalitarian theocracy behind the terrorist attacks. It's only revenge for infidels invading sacred muslim territory? Once the U.S. leaves, there will just be a bunch of happy campers left to pick up where they left off under the last despot.

Not exactly, no.

Occupations are an unfortunate thing. They spawn opposition (like the British Army in Northern Ireland)... and, once the conflict is over, the opposition ahs a life of it's own.

Just like Israel 'sponsoring' Hamas, as a way of lessening the power of the PLO... and now, Hamas comes back to bite them in the ass.

So - do I think it will be butterflies and kittens if the US moved out tomorrow? No... I'd actually imagine there might be a brief spike in violence. But then, without the US presence to rally against, I think the insurgency would largely find other focuses... either elsewhere in the world, or in direct confrontations or poliical maneuvering within Iraq.

We keep making these situations... and we never learn. The US armed the Taliban against the Communists... the US armed Iraq against Iran. Now, we are sponsoring an occupation, and we have caused the creation of a 'resistance' movement, that will probably live on for some time after we leave.

Perhaps Iraq can pull together, and get over these differences. But they won't with US troops patrolling the streets.

Other point, I just noticed... "Do I think that there is no big movement towards a totalitarian theocracy behind the terrorist attacks". I think there are several movements, that are being given a common enemy, a rallying call. I'm very sure there ARE theocratic elements at work... religion makes a great banner to rally around.

And when the terrorists actually stop blowing up Iraqis we will leave. All the government has to do is tell us to leave so no sense yelling at US Forces. We are there at the behest of the government now. If they want us to leave all they have to do is tell us.

the US and UK have been proven to be conducting false-flag op's in Iraq, not to mention in numerious other countrys in previous wars.

and the US killed the protesters at Kent State.

A sad day in American History but I also suggest that you look at the reasons why they fired. There is more to that story than the fact that the soldiers fired into them.

the US and UK have been proven to be conducting false-flag op's in Iraq, not to mention in numerious other countrys in previous wars.

Prove it!

A sad day in American History but I also suggest that you look at the reasons why they fired. There is more to that story than the fact that the soldiers fired into them.

There always IS more to the story...

There always IS more to the story...

Yes there is but the rest of the story always seems to be ignored. Admittedly I do not know much about the Kent University Massacre.

There is no point. I read the blog and its a nice opinion. Just like his first website. Opinion

opinion =/= fact

well, I believe you are confusing oppion with false or debateable fact.

I can say that the moon is made of cheese, that's not an oppion, that's a fact. a false fact, but non the less a fact. However, saying that the moon is made of taste cheese is an oppion, as untill "taste" is scientificly quanitifed, it's left to purely subjective judgement asto rather or not you agree.

Prove it!

already posted a link, go find it yourself.

Yes there is but the rest of the story always seems to be ignored. Admittedly I do not know much about the Kent University Massacre.

And, as I showed the other poster who was talking about Chinese despotism, apparently, almost no one knows anything about Tiananmen Square.

A sad day in American History but I also suggest that you look at the reasons why they fired. There is more to that story than the fact that the soldiers fired into them.

lets see. the soilders deployed gas masks when there was no expectation of air borne irritants, and removed the name tags from there uniforms. any stupid shit about "being backed into a corner" or "getting scared" is bullshit, as it's plainly premediated before even going in. if they can't identify who fired and who didn't, they can't hold anyone legally responsible. otherwise, if you are talking about burning the baraks, then you've probably also just justifyed the the Chinese response at Tienaman Square.

already posted a link, go find it yourself.

A link to a blog and a link i do not trust now prove it.

A link to a blog and a link i do not trust now prove it.

no, a link I posted earlier in this thread.

lets see. the soilders deployed gas masks when there was no expectation of air borne irritants, and removed the name tags from there uniforms. any stupid shit about "being backed into a corner" or "getting scared" is bullshit, as it's plainly premediated before even going in. if they can't identify who fired and who didn't, they can't hold anyone legally responsible. otherwise, if you are talking about burning the baraks, then you've probably also just justifyed the the Chinese response at Tienaman Square.

I really suggest you take your god damn blinders off and actually study something. It is apparent that you are blinded by hatred of the military and that is not conducive to proper research.

As for Tienaman squared, I hardly remember it since it happened in the late 80s when I was still a child.

no, a link I posted earlier in this thread.

Just provide it. You've already shown your hatred for the military so I'll take it with a grain of salt but I'll still look at it.

Yes there is but the rest of the story always seems to be ignored. Admittedly I do not know much about the Kent University Massacre.
What I remember, and I was twelve at the time, was that there had been a series of riots on different campuses in Ohio. The Governor had called out the National Guard to ensure some sort of order. At Kent, things weren't all that tense, but there were some loosely organized protests that weekend. Once the Guard showed up, things intensified quite a bit.

The hyperbole was much like it is today. "Us", "Them", "The War", everything was either good or evil. Anyhow, a demonstration moved a little closer to a line of National Guard troops, who claimed to fear for their lives. The National Guard opened fire on the unarmed and peaceful protesters and killed four.

A link to a blog and a link i do not trust now prove it.
*laughing myself silly with the irony*

I really suggest you take your god damn blinders off and actually study something. It is apparent that you are blinded by hatred of the military and that is not conducive to proper research.

As for Tienaman squared, I hardly remember it since it happened in the late 80s when I was still a child.

please, show where I have stated explict hate of military. I find it reprehensibale to divorce your consious from your actions, yes. but that's not haterd, just disgust. and you've already admitted yourself that you don't study the topic, so what would you know and what ground do you have to stand on to call me baseless?

please, show where I have stated explict hate of military. I find it reprehensibale to divorce your consious from your actions, yes. but that's not haterd, just disgust. and you've already admitted yourself that you don't study the topic, so what would you know and what ground do you have to stand on to call me baseless?

You didn't come right out and say it but I can see it in each post you type.

Its ok, I don't care if you don't like them or not. Its not my job to judge you.

Just provide it. You've already shown your hatred for the military so I'll take it with a grain of salt but I'll still look at it.

british false-flag op (http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=55&p=15926&s2=20)
yea, it's an arabic news source.... but that could never be reliable.... cause, you know.... there right there.....


I read a variety of news sources and believe about 50%-85% of any particular source.... the exception is Fox, I believe 0% of what they say untill it's verifed by someone else.

You didn't come right out and say it but I can see it in each post you type.

Its ok, I don't care if you don't like them or not. Its not my job to judge you.

dislike =/= hate.

british false-flag op (http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=55&p=15926&s2=20)
yea, it's an arabic news source.... but that could never be reliable.... cause, you know.... there right there.....

Nice! Another opinion piece.

dislike =/= hate.

True!

Nice! Another opinion piece.

please identify which aspects of the article are infact oppion. mind you, the distinction between false or debatable fact and oppion.

This is a whizbang of a poll. The first option has absolutely nothing to do with the question, and the last option is a blatant non-sequitor.

EDIT: My father, grandfather, and several uncles were in the armed services, so you can imagine my support for it. I do not, however, wish to sign up.

please identify which aspects of the article are infact oppion. mind you, the distinction between false or debatable fact and oppion.

1) Zarqawi does exist and has been linked to the bombings in Iraq and Jordan. that is fact not opinion

2) There is a huge campaign for the agents of the foreign occupation to enter and plant hatred between the sons of the Iraqi people, and spread rumors in order to scare the one from the other.

The quoted piece is also opinion.

Those are just 2 of the things I found misleading in this whole article. I have found more too.

This is a whizbang of a poll. The first option has absolutely nothing to do with the question, and the last option is a blatant non-sequitor.

EDIT: My father, grandfather, and several uncles were in the armed services, so you can imagine my support for it. I do not, however, wish to sign up.

The first option states that one is against ALL military action(not just Afghanistan/Iraq). The "I do not support my troops" option means they only do not support the troops currently in Iraq/Afghanistan

1) Zarqawi does exist and has been linked to the bombings in Iraq and Jordan. that is fact not opinion

it may be false, or it may be true. but it's still fact because it can be verifed on way or the other.

besides, Zarqawi was reported to have received an amputation, yet video's of him do not demonstrate this.


The quoted piece is also opinion.

Those are just 2 of the things I found misleading in this whole article. I have found more too.

that quote is persented as a persons oppion. Not the authors oppion, but as intervewee's oppion.

[edited for whoreable word choice]

My father, grandfather, and several uncles were in the armed services, so you can imagine my support for it.Can't, really. Wouldn't know.I do not, however, wish to sign up.Is the one state of affairs predicated by some aspect of the previous statement? Well, good luck with it.

The first option states that one is against ALL military action(not just Afghanistan/Iraq). The "I do not support my troops" option means they only do not support the troops currently in Iraq/Afghanistan

The opposition to military action has no bearing on one's opinion of soldiers.

Can't, really. Wouldn't know.

I respect them, therefore I respect their decision, respect their sacrifice, and respect their employer as a valuable resource.

Is the one state of affairs predicated by some aspect of the previous statement? Well, good luck with it.

It is predicated on my unwillingness to make the same sacrifice they made.

It is a good thing, too, as I would have been ushered in to the middle east for a war that I have never been able to justify.

I have a cousin in Iraq who is a tank commander....he has gone through alot over there and i would be a complete ass not to support him....wars aren't won or lost on the front lines, they are won or lost based on the support they do/do not receive at home...Vietnam ring any bells? I've had family in that war as well....it pisses me off to hear people dishonor their sacrifices based on a few assholes doing stupid things.....whether you are for the war or not....do not belittle the sacrifices of our friends and family....

I have a cousin in Iraq who is a tank commander....he has gone through alot over there and i would be a complete ass not to support him....wars aren't won or lost on the front lines, they are won or lost based on the support they do/do not receive at home...Vietnam ring any bells? I've had family in that war as well....it pisses me off to hear people dishonor their sacrifices based on a few assholes doing stupid things.....whether you are for the war or not....do not belittle the sacrifices of our friends and family....
Amen to that, buddy. But protesting the war at home will ultimately save soldiers' lives. Just think about how many more soldiers could have been killed if we waited interminably for it to end (in Vietnam). In most cases, protesting the war at home is beneficial. But DO NOT protest the soldiers themselves.

I'm behind the troops 100%. A friend of mine was just killed a month ago in Iraq. I have 3 other friends there too. I'm fully behind them and pray for their safety.

it may be false, or it may be true. but it's still fact because it can be verifed on way or the other.

besides, Zarqawi was reported to have received an amputation, yet video's of him do not demonstrate this.

That's a first I've heard of him being an amputee. However, Zarqawi is alive and is a real person. Therefor, the piece is inaccurate.


that quote is persented as a persons oppion. Not the authors oppion, but as intervewee's oppion.

[edited for whoreable word choice]

Yea the 2nd part is what the person said and not the author but it is still false.

i don't care that people protested Vietnam....but when they call my Uncle a baby-killer....:headbang: ....THAT IS NOT RIGHT

Amen to that, buddy. But protesting the war at home will ultimately save soldiers' lives. Just think about how many more soldiers could have been killed if we waited interminably for it to end (in Vietnam). In most cases, protesting the war at home is beneficial. But DO NOT protest the soldiers themselves.

And think how many lives would've been saved if the politicians hadn't gotten involved in deciding to lable certain targets off limits. Targets that needed to be hit.

Vietnam ring any bells? I've had family in that war as well....it pisses me off to hear people dishonor their sacrifices based on a few assholes doing stupid things.....whether you are for the war or not....do not belittle the sacrifices of our friends and family....

The true problem is in the superiors, you can honor sacrifices that were made in vain, but you must hold their superiors responsible. Only by not holding their superiors responsible to do you belittle their sacrifice.

Vietnam, for example, we accomplished nothing but a great deal of dead soldiers, now we have let the lesson they taught us slip away by going into another war that is destined to failure.

Vietnam, for example, we accomplished nothing but a great deal of dead soldiers, now we have let the lesson they taught us slip away by going into another war that is destined to failure.

Such pessimism.

Such pessimism.

Skepticism combined with a slight knowledge of current events.

That's a first I've heard of him being an amputee. However, Zarqawi is alive and is a real person. Therefor, the piece is inaccurate.




Yea the 2nd part is what the person said and not the author but it is still false.

journalist often report people's oppion. and it doesn't matter how outlandish the oppion is, it doesn't go to the credibility of the article. furthermore, it's not false, it's an oppion.

Skepticism combined with a slight knowledge of current events.

*snorts in amusement*

In case you haven't noticed or heard about yet, the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds are talking about a greater role for the Sunnis in the current government. Talks sparked by the bombing of Golden Dome Mosque I might add.

I think everyone realizes that they need to work together to end this.

journalist often report people's oppion. and it doesn't matter how outlandish the oppion is, it doesn't go to the credibility of the article. furthermore, it's not false, it's an oppion.

Actually, it is false.

How about actually adressing the point instead of your usual avoiding the point.
No sense asking the Cornman to address a point, because all he does is offer his opinions and rhetoric. He rarely, as in almost never backs up his talking points with links that would back his argument. If you don't believe me, just go back through the thread and you will see exactly what I mean.

He is always asking for proof from others but fails to provide his own.

Another clue for you. He has stated that "abortion is murder" but then makes statements like the following in regards to Iraq:

Frankly, I would've carpet bombed the nation and then send in the military forces.

I do not support the majority of the American troops. Most of the people that I know who joined the military are assholes who joined for the stated purpose of killing people (my favorite given reason, "I want to get revenge on the Iraqis for killing American troops.") those people are not likely the majority of those in the military but are still a large number and should be viewed no differently than serial kilers. For the other soldiers who joined out of a desire to help their country and "do the right thing," I have nothing but contempt for their naivety and inability to think for themselves. For the high ups who direct these conflicts, I do have some respect for some of them but I still find all of them reprehensible. All of our soliders in Iraq (and perhaps to a lesser extent Afghanastan) will die painfully. Those who do not die in battle or from injuries, will die slowly from radiation poisoning ("Gulf War syndrome") from the use of depleted uranium munitions. I have no pity or sympathy for any of them.

I was in the military for 6 years, and not once did i meet someone who joined to kill people. I have nothing but contempt for your type, those who are completely ignorant of what goes on in the military and still think they can insult those who choose to serve. Do you actually think ALL troops in Iraq and Afghanastan will die painfully? That's just stupid. And depleted uranium is jast that, DEPLETED! You can't get radiation poisoning from something that isn't radioactive.

I was in the military for 6 years, and not once did i meet someone who joined to kill people. I have nothing but contempt for your type, those who are completely ignorant of what goes on in the military and still think they can insult those who choose to serve. Do you actually think ALL troops in Iraq and Afghanastan will die painfully? That's just stupid. And depleted uranium is jast that, DEPLETED! You can't get radiation poisoning from something that isn't radioactive.
Ummmm, just because it is called depleted uranium does not mean that it is not radioactive:

Recommendations

Following conflict, levels of DU contamination in food and drinking water might be detected in affected areas even after a few years. This should be monitored where it is considered there is a reasonable possibility of significant quantities of DU entering the ground water or food chain.
Where justified and possible, clean-up operations in impact zones should be undertaken if there are substantial numbers of radioactive projectiles remaining and where qualified experts deem contamination levels to be unacceptable. If high concentrations of DU dust or metal fragments are present, then areas may need to be cordoned off until removal can be accomplished. Such impact sites are likely to contain a variety of hazardous materials, in particular unexploded ordnance. Due consideration needs to be given to all hazards, and the potential hazard from DU kept in perspective.

Small children could receive greater exposure to DU when playing in or near DU impact sites. Their typical hand-to-mouth activity could lead to high DU ingestion from contaminated soil. Necessary preventative measures should be taken.

Disposal of DU should follow appropriate national or international recommendations.

I was in the military for 6 years, and not once did i meet someone who joined to kill people. I have nothing but contempt for your type, those who are completely ignorant of what goes on in the military and still think they can insult those who choose to serve. Do you actually think ALL troops in Iraq and Afghanastan will die painfully? That's just stupid. And depleted uranium is jast that, DEPLETED! You can't get radiation poisoning from something that isn't radioactive.

I might have overestimated how many people who joined to kill people, but I do know people who joined the military with the express intent to kill people. I am certainly ignorant of the military compared to you, but I am far from completely ignorant on the matter having relatives who have served and having done a substantial amount of research. Is there is some aspect of my ignorance that you'd like to dispel that you think would alter my opinion?

In regards to the depleted (the depletion refers to the fact that it is the left overs of what is used in reactors, radioactivity is inherent to uranium)uranium, to supplement what Canuk posted, here are a hanful of links I posted earlier. I encourage everyone who supports the war in Iraq to go to the bottom site to see the effects of our use of depleted uranium on unborn children of Iraq and understand that this will persist for countless millenia.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=18948&colonna=&bh=0&l=e

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml

http://www.unknownnews.org/050930a-df.html

http://www.mercola.com/2004/mar/20/gulf_war_babies.htm

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/1/05542/6088

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=18948&colonna=&bh=0&l=e

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml

http://www.unknownnews.org/050930a-df.html

http://www.mercola.com/2004/mar/20/gulf_war_babies.htm

http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/12/1/05542/6088

Unfortunately, all of those sites have strongly ant-war agendas and aren't known for their accuracy. If you actually read the articles, the numbers given by these sites actually contradict each other in the number of people who served and the number on disability. I worked with depleted uranium rounds on a daily basis for 4 years, and the environmental impact is completely blown out of proportion. And while it is still being used, it is no longer manufactured due to its being replaced by tungstan.

cameroi learn how to defend themselves with pitchforks, energy excavating toos and standard constablry stunners, as part of our basic education. we have no standing army and don't need any.

we have instead methods of coordinating neccessary action without virtical command structures.

as for 'real' world countrys, MY country is the immaginary one inside my head, and right now the one outside of my head i'm surrounded by is doing more to destroy the kind of world i wish to live in then contributing anything to it.

something no other country is doing to it, but it is doing to many other countries as well as itself.

i support the poor bastards that get conned into killing people for it with my simpathy for the misfortunes of human gullability.

=^^=
.../\...

They rebuild bridges and schools and whatnot.. Hardly military, so I support them very much I guess.

Unfortunately, all of those sites have strongly ant-war agendas and aren't known for their accuracy. If you actually read the articles, the numbers given by these sites actually contradict each other in the number of people who served and the number on disability. I worked with depleted uranium rounds on a daily basis for 4 years, and the environmental impact is completely blown out of proportion. And while it is still being used, it is no longer manufactured due to its being replaced by tungstan.
Unfortunately, you have a strong pro war agenda? You have done nothing to prove your point, and from what I have read so far, not only is DU toxic, it is also illegal?:

US forces' use of depleted uranium weapons is 'illegal' (http://www.sundayherald.com/32522)

BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.

DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.

Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.'

The latest use of DU in the current conflict came on Friday when an American A10 tankbuster plane fired a DU shell, killing one British soldier and injuring three others in a 'friendly fire' incident.

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.

DU has been blamed for the effects of Gulf war syndrome -- typified by chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue and memory loss -- among 200,000 US soldiers after the 1991 conflict.

It is also cited as the most likely cause of the 'increased number of birth deformities and cancer in Iraq' following the first Gulf war.

'Cancer appears to have increased between seven and 10 times and deformities between four and six times,' according to the UN subcommission.

The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war, although Russian military experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure.

Luckily, our troops are intelligent enough to stay out of Iraq :D
And the other countries where they actually go, they don't mess up things :)

Also, they don't trample on the Geneva conventions (and many other conventions) by not using actual *weapons of mass destruction" as the US troops do by using depleted uranium in their weapons, which is harmful for their targets and the soldiers themselves alike. :rolleyes:

What I remember, and I was twelve at the time, was that there had been a series of riots on different campuses in Ohio. The Governor had called out the National Guard to ensure some sort of order. At Kent, things weren't all that tense, but there were some loosely organized protests that weekend. Once the Guard showed up, things intensified quite a bit.

The hyperbole was much like it is today. "Us", "Them", "The War", everything was either good or evil. Anyhow, a demonstration moved a little closer to a line of National Guard troops, who claimed to fear for their lives. The National Guard opened fire on the unarmed and peaceful protesters and killed four.

Not strictly true... and misses perhaps the most important factor.

The demonstration was against the US invasion of Cambodia... so we are talking about peace-protestors. For me, that seems like an important factor.

Regarding what happened about 'demonstrations' moving 'closer to the Guards'... that was not the 'excuse' given. Some Guards CLAIMED a sniper attacked them... but no sniper was found, no evidence was found of a sniper, the testimony of the Guards did not conform one-to-another... and, perhpas most importantly, ballistics evidence shows 63 (I believe) shots fired, all FROM the Guard position.

As to the idea of protestors moving closer... I could probably hunt a link, but I seem to recall that the NEAREST 'victim' hit by the Guard fire, was something like 70 feet away. I'm not sure I can see that as a clear and present threat.

Also - "The National Guard opened fire on the unarmed and peaceful protesters and killed four" is not entirely true... unless I recall it incorrectly, they killed two protestors, and two uninvolved passers-by.